Politicians from Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood to Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant to legislators of both parties have endorsed the proposal.
But the executive committee of the Mississippi Section of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote a letter to its members voicing unanimous opposition. The letter was signed by the officers of the group, including Tupelo physician Wayne Slocum, who is the vice chair.
"While we believe that the intentions of this proposition's supporters are not to do harm, we fear that the people of Mississippi, as well as the doctors, could be 'collateral damage' in the war over abortion," the letter from the medical group read.
And recently, two Jackson-based doctors in the area of obstetrics and gynecology held a news conference at the state Capitol to express opposition to the amendment that will be on the ballot for Mississippians to approve or reject on Nov. 8.
"We have named this the law of unintended consequences," said Dr. Paul Seago, a Jackson-based gynecologic oncology specialist. "It would negatively impact the delivery of medicine in Mississippi."
Seago, who also treats patients in Tupelo, and Dr. Randall Hines, a reproductive specialist, highlighted a litany of ways they believe the proposal could impact health care in Mississippi.
Les Riley of Hickory Flat, the sponsor of the initiative, led a grassroots effort to garner the nearly 90,000 signatures of registered voters needed to place it on the ballot.
YesOn26, which is an advocacy group working for the passage of the initiative, rejects the claims being made by some in the medical community.
"Personhood is a constitutional definition that establishes a principle. It does not attempt to set policy and procedure for every situation," the YesOn26 web site explains. "Personhood establishes that both the mother and baby must be protected."
During the recent news conference, the physicians gave numerous examples of where they believe the proposal would complicate their ability to provide medical treatment.
They said under the concept that life begins at fertilization, an egg that was fertilized in the Fallopian tube that would have no chance of survival would have the same legal protection as an egg fertilized in the uterus. This, they said, could put the life of the mother at risk.
But YesOn 26, said, "In the hard cases where the baby is unviable, the doctor would save the life of the mother."
The doctors, though, said those exceptions are not spelled out, and it would be difficult to identify in law every instance where a physician would have to make a hard choice.
There also are disagreements on whether the proposal - if passed - would affect the use of contraceptives, but both doctors who held the news conference and YesOn26 agreed that it would prevent the use of what is known as "the morning after pill." The doctors said that would prevent the use of the pill by a rape victim to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
The proposal also would protect the fertilized egg in instances of rape and incest, both sides agree.
If the proposal is approved on Nov. 8, it is reasonable to expect that it will lead to numerous court challenges since it seems to conflict with federal abortion law as defined by the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling.